Sunday, July 15, 2007

Tim Weiner's "history" of the CIA

I just finished listening on C-SPAN to Tim Weiner being interviewed by David Ignatius re his new book on the CIA. Weiner is remarkably misleading about the CIA's record, especially in relation to the Kennedys. This is not surprising, however, since Weiner has been a favored reporter of the CIA's for years now.

Weiner's point he most wants to convey is that -- far from being the "rogue elephant" that Frank Church called it -- the CIA has always been ultraresponsive to Presidents. But that is provable untrue.

I'm shocked he would open with a quote from Richard Helms, and then return to him on the subject of Kennedy's assassination, given Helms' willingness to lie under oath (he was charged with perjury for denying the CIA's role in the Chilean operations).

Let's look at how "responsive" the CIA has been to the president over the years:

Truman wanted an information agency. The CIA essentially blackmailed itself into existence (see CIA officer Miles Copeland's veiled account of this in his book "The Real CIA.") So right off the bat, the CIA was doing something Truman didn't want. After Kennedy's assassination, Truman wrote a letter that was published in the Washington Post, in which he stated:
I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue-and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda.

With all the nonsense put out by Communist propaganda ... the last thing we needed was for the CIA to be seized upon as something akin to a subverting influence in the affairs of other people. ...

But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field-and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.

We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.

The CIA was clearly not created to serve only the President. It was created to serve the interests of Wall Street, and if you follow their pattern of covert action around the globe, you'll see who benefitted. The Guatemalan coup in 1954 benefitted the United Fruit Company. The Iranian coup in the early fifties benefitted the oil barons (access to oil was listed as the first explicit goal of the coup in the summary of that operation.) The CIA was created from the OSS, itself a creation not of the government so much as of Wall Street. The top officers all came from children of lawyers, bankers, and other money men. The OSS's nickname was "Oh So Social" due to its high profile roster.

The CIA has often run an agenda counter to what the president wished. This is easy to document in the Kennedy administration - they were at odds at nearly every turn. But it wasn't only the Kennedy adminstration that had difficulty with the CIA.

Under the Eisenhower administration, for example, Eisenhower was set to meet with Khrushchev to discuss a mutual reduction in arms. The CIA didn't want to see any such accommodation. So in express defiance of Eisenhower's request that no such flights be made, the CIA flew the U2 over the Soviet Union. As the "official" story goes, the Soviets shot it down. As people close to those events have said in print and elsewhere, there's good evidence that the flight was deliberately sabotaged by the CIA so that it would crash over the Soviet Union, preventing a peace treaty. Even CIA director Allen Dulles stated the plane was not shot down. As Dulles testified to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on May 31, 1960:
"We believe that it was not shot down at its operating altitude of around 70,000 feet by the Russians. We believe that it was initially forced down to a much lower altitude by some as yet undetermined mechanical malfunction." ? "It is obvious to us that the plane was not hit. If the plane had been hit by a ground-to-air missile, in our belief, it would have disintegrated."
While Eisenhower later claimed responsibility for the overflight, the evidence is strong that he was surprised, and upset, that the CIA would risk upsetting the all-important peace conference. I believe that incident is part of the reason Eisenhower gave us that famous warning as he prepared to leave office:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
(Looks like we failed that call.)

I'm especially upset to hear Weiner repeat the old canard that RFK ordered the killing of Castro. RFK did NOT order the CIA to kill Castro. EVER. There is NO such tape. NO such testimony. The closest you get are comments made NOT under oath by Richard Helms, which he refused to confirm when finally skewered on this point UNDER oath. Helms had his deputy, Sam Halpern, run around and tell people this was so, even though Helms knew this to be false. It's not clear if Halpern knew this to be false, it's only clear (now, with released records and additional comments from all the intimates of RFK still alive) that RFK would never have approved any murder plot. As RFK said to Dick Goodwin, he's the guy who tried to SAVE Castro.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the CIA's Bill Harvey sent 10 commando teams into Cuba with the goal of killing Castro. When RFK found out, he was as furious as anyone had ever seen him. He demanded Harvey stop and Harvey said he couldn't call the teams back. RFK gave Harvey "five minutes" to explain what the hell he was thinking, doing this. Harvey tried to blame it on the Pentagon but RFK had already received believable assurances from the Pentagon that that was baloney. Five minutes later, with Harvey still talking, RFK walked. RFK then demanded the CIA fire Harvey. The ever compliant (not) CIA instead transferred Harvey to Rome to hide him from RFK, but Harvey returned stateside in 1963.

In fact, the accusation of RFK's role in the Castro plots never even surfaced until the right wing and the CIA were both suffering severe scrutiny in the wake of the Watergate episode. The right wingers in the CIA wanted to use the occasion to smear Democrats as well, in the hopes of deterring a deeper investigation and possibly with the additional goal of deterring people from caring about who killed JFK and why.

Meanwhile, however, a document written by the CIA's own Inspector General, not released until LONG after the Church and Pike committee investigations had already disappeared into history, asked and answered this question explicitly, asking, can the CIA claim it had executive authority for these plots, and answering its own question, "Not in this case":
Can CIA state or imply that it was merely an instrument of policy?

Not in this case. While it is true that Phase Two was carried out in an atmosphere of intense Kennedy administration1 pressure to do something about Castro,2 such is not true of the earlier phase. Phase One was initiated in August 1960 under the Eisenhower adminstration. Phase Two is associated in [Bill] Harvey's mind with the Executive Action Capability [assassination capability], which reportedly was developed in response to White House urgings. Again, Phase One had been started and abandoned months before the Executive Action Capability appeared on the scene.

When Robert Kennedy was briefed on Phase One in May 1962, he strongly admonished Houston and Edwards to check with the Attorney General in advance of any future intended use of U.S. criminal elements. This was not done with respect to Phase Two, which was already well under way at the time Kennedy was briefed.3 [Emphasis added.]
I added three notes to clarify:

1. The "Kennedy administration" does not mean the Kennedy's. See Gerald Colby and Charlotte Dennett's excellent book "Thy Will Be Done" and their chapter on the "Rockefeller Administration." The Kennedys knew political operatives, but ended up relying on so many men from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund that his administration could more appriately called "the Rockefeller administration." Indeed, David Talbot shows in his recent book "Brothers" just how isolated the Kennedys became during their term, at war with nearly everyone at a high level in their administration. The Kennedys did not want a Pax Americana. The Rockefeller people did. There were several in Kennedy's administration who wanted Castro dead. But JFK and RFK were not among them.

2. There was indeed intense pressure to "do something" about Castro. But Kennedy intimates have made clear, as does the available record from credible sources, that the Kennedys wanted to foment a domestic revolution inside Cuba. They did not want to kill Castro. And every time the CIA pressured them to do exactly that (at the Bay of Pigs, and again during the Cuban missile crisis), the Kennedy's resisted that pressure.

3. The CIA states that they briefed Kennedy on the Phase One plots, but not the Phase Two plots. The wording is obtuse, but that is what they just said, right there in their own report. And they did not tell RFK they were using Mob people in the Phase Two plots either, despite RFK's explicit request to be informed if the very people he had spent years trying to prosecute were suddenly going to get federal protection. Other sources make clear that Kennedy was reportedly livid at the discovery not just at the use of the Mob, but at the revelation that the CIA was trying to kill Castro.

Weiner makes a big deal of a CIA's agents secret meeting with Rolando Cubela (not named by Weiner but it's obviously him) and noted that the agent, Des Fitzgerald went to Cubela and SAID he was an emissary of Robert Kennedy.

What Weiner doesn't tell you is that Helms had TOLD Fitzgerald to say that, even though Helms ALSO told Fitzgerald that RFK did not know. Helms told Fitzgerald not to talk to RFK about this, but to simply invoke his name with Cubela. That's on the record, a record Weiner does not mention, even though that shows up in nearly all accounts of this meeting so he could hardly be ignorant of that.

Here are two examples of the CIA's not following Kennedy's orders that are not in Talbot's book. In either 1962 or 1963 (I'm too lazy to go dig the article from my files), the CIA undertook to taint a large shipment of sugar leaving Cuba for the Soviet Union. Kennedy found out and went right to the press with it. Can you imagine the CIA's fury at having been exposed by their own president? And can you imagine Kennedy's fury, after the Bay of Pigs, to find the CIA was still willing to run its own operations without consulting him?

Another incident I learned about while browsing the Watergate hearings evidence, Volume 10. There's a transcript of a secret conversation between Lucien Conein, longtime CIA agent who helped start the DIA (Kennedy's replacement agency for the CIA, sadly staffed by the very people he would have wanted to stop if he knew who they were.) Hunt and Conein are discussing how Lodge, in Vietnam, was pushing for Diem's assassination, and Robert Kennedy kept trying to stop the plot. They were laughing about how ineffective RFK was and how Lodge managed to get around him and give the plot a green light. I'd bet good money Weiner never read that interesting conversation, and doubt he'd have put it in his book even if he had.

[CORRECTION: The conversation is in vol. 9, not 10, and Conein was in the DEA, which was created by Nixon, not the DIA, which was created by Kennedy. And they are not recorded as laughing, but there's a certain levity to the conversation, as I read it.]

I can't believe Weiner's near worship of Helms. People love to paint Helms as a solid bureaucrat, one of the "prudent professionals" as Stewart Alsop so lovingly called Helms, Angleton, and other right-wing nuts in the CIA. But this is the guy who, as a spy working under cover of UPI at the time, stole into Hitler's personal quarters and took some of his stationary. He even wrote his son a letter on Hitler's letterhead in later years, so enamored was he of his prize.

I've read every major history of the CIA to date. So far, it sounds like Weiner is just digging in the same trench. I have no intention of adding yet another book saying the same things to my collection. I have enough disinformation on my shelves already.

How I long to see a serious author do an honest history of the CIA. But then, it's likely no major house would publish it. The Church and Pike committees found that the CIA controlled people at major publishing houses. Their inside people alerted them to books that might be harmful to the CIA, and got such books killed. James Angleton's secretary used to be married to one of the big editors at Random House, Bob Loomis.

When the Bill Turner/Jonn Christian book on the RFK case snuck through, Random House, threatened with a lawsuit by a guy who may well have been connected to the CIA, recalled and burned the book. That's our world.

That's why I have to keep writing. SOMEONE who knows the truth has to stand up and tell it, since the shills get nearly all the airtime. I don't know if Weiner is a shill or just someone who has fallen in love with his subject. I just know, from hearing him, that his representation is not an honest account of the full record of the CIA's history. The REAL history of the CIA is far more interesting, and indeed, far more heartbreaking.

15 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is this the same Tim Weiner who many years ago wrote Blank Check: The Pentagon's Black Budget?

12:15 PM  
Blogger Real History Lisa said...

I wanted to add this comment, which I received from Jerry Policoff via email. I'm posting here with his permission.

Conein was directly involved in the plot to overthrow Diem. JFK had reluctantly approved the coup, but he had expressly forbade Diem’s assassination. The South Vietnamese generals who engineered the coup had been given $42,000 in cash by Conein, who had been instructed to tell them that JFK had ordered that Diem was not to be harmed. The generals killed Diem anyway. Conein told the Church Commission that he had told the generals that Diem was not to be killed, but the Church Committee noted that Conein “did not so indicate in his detailed After-diction report.” I have always believed that Conein encouraged the killing of Diem in spite of JFK’s explicit orders to the contrary. It is hard for me to believe that those generals would have risked defying the orders of the Americans who were placing them in power. If Diem’s assassination was sanctioned or even tolerated by the CIA this is but one more example of that agency defying JFK. It is also further evidence that JFK did not believe in assassinating foreign leaders.

You can read the Church Committee’s report on the Diem Coup here:
http://25thaviation.org/history/id549.htm

9:02 PM  
Blogger David Kaiser said...

Lisa,

My book will quote extensively from the Hoover-RFK discussion of the CIA plot. It confirms what I said in my blog post: neither one of them expresses any reservations about assassinating Fidel per se, only about the personnel selected. In addition, the problem with your analysis is that "fomenting a revolution in Cuba," the Kennedy Administration frequently decided, might be done by causing the sudden death of the top leadership. I wish this wasn't true, but it is.

7:31 AM  
Blogger Real History Lisa said...

I'll have to see your sources, David, because after 15 years of research on the Kennedy presidency, the only people who make such claims have provably lied about other issues of record.

7:37 AM  
Blogger Real History Lisa said...

(I'm repeating a comment I added on David Kaiser's blog here because I think this point is key.)

David, I'll have to see the transcript of the Hoover/Kennedy conversation to which you refer. Excuse my skepticism. There was a time I believed the Kennedys had indeed ordered the killing of Castro. But the more I read, the more I realized this was the Helms/Halpern line with no substantial support.

In addition, didn't you find it odd that the Family Jewels as released had no mention of RFK's alleged role in the Castro plots? If the Kennedys had authorized the plots, there would have been no reason to keep them hidden because the CIA could have claimed executive authority. But as I showed in that excerpt of the IG report, the CIA itself admitted they HAD no executive authority for the plots. That's why the Castro plots ended up in the Jewels in the first place. Agency employees themselves believed the plots to be a violation of the law.

7:43 AM  
Anonymous -ck- said...

This post has tons of great information -- I had no idea there was open warfare between the Kennedys and the CIA.

Slightly OT, but the Nixon/Dulles relationship predates the HUAC/Hiss hearings:

Dulles, Nixon, and the Nazis

"Richard Nixon’s political career began in 1945, when as a navy officer he was assigned to review some captured Nazi documents.

Allen Dulles told Nixon to keep quiet about what he had seen and, in return, arranged to finance the young man’s first congressional campaign.

The documents that Dulles was eager to cover up concerned Karl Blessing, the former Reichsbank officer and then head of the Nazi oil cartel called Kontinentale 01 AG, or “Konti.” Konti was in partnership with Allen and John Foster Dulles’ principal Nazi client, I.G. Farben, the infamous chemical/weapons producer. ...

Dulles was also covering up for Blessing in order to protect continued control of German oil interests in the Middle East. Blessing’s Konti was the Nazi link to King Ibn Saud [whose family was empowered to rule the Arabian peninsula thanks to Nazi collaborators within British and U.S. intelligence] and Aramco (the Arab-American Oil Co.). If Blessing went down, he could have taken a lot of people with him, including Allen Dulles."

I've read a number of versions of this story, but the gist is that as a Naval Intelligence Officer, Nixon deep sixed a report that linked Allan Dulles to Nazi business interests. In gratitude, Dulles became Nixon's mentor.

There is also a story that says Nixon's political career began when he responded to a classified ad placed by Prescott Bush -- but even if true, that sounds like a disinformation cover story, to hide the Dulles connection.

10:26 AM  
Anonymous Panther said...

I attended a talk by Tim Weiner on Tuesday, July 31 at the Philadelphia Public Library. Very poor talk, he seemed to be saying all the things the CIA did were due to incompetence and if they only had done them correctly it would have been okay.Blamed all presidents for actions of CIA. He was asked a question about JFK death. Answer so awful,unbelievable

9:23 PM  
Blogger Real History Lisa said...

What did he say, Panther? Would love to hear more!

9:30 PM  
Anonymous panther said...

T.Weiner's answer to the JFK assassination. Yuri Nosencho defected and the CIA could never tell if he was telling the truth or protecting the S.Union. Since Oswald had been to Mexico City and visited the Russian & Cuban embassies it was possible that he was a Russian or Cuban agent. The choice is Oswald was a lone nut or a or a hired killer or Nosencho was telling the truth. Helms died at the age of 89 and he was never sure if Nosencho was telling the truth or not.
Weiner insisted that the CIA only follows orders and all presidents are responsible for their actions.
I heard V.Bugliosi at the same place a few weeks ago, his answer to Oswald's motive was even more out in left field. I will send his answer in another post.








w

9:08 PM  
Anonymous panther said...

One more important item from Tim Weiner. He said Bush did not lie about Iraq. It was Tenet's fault. Tenet gave Bush info based on 1998.No mention of the inspectors at the time and what they were not finding.z

9:30 AM  
Anonymous panther said...

V.Bugliosi answer to Oswald's motive. He admitted his motive was unknown for sure. Admitted he did not hate JFK but motive not necessary if facts are there. Then sited a series of speculations. Ended by mentioning a line in Oswald diary in which he said he hated the leaders of capitalism. He was not shooting at JFK he was shooting at capitalism.

9:38 AM  
Blogger Real History Lisa said...

That's hilarious - motive isn't necessary if you have evidence. Isn't the lack of a motive and presence of evidence a combination that should cry out for further investigation? Sheesh. Thanks, Panther.

3:09 PM  
Anonymous Trueman said...

Does anyone wish to address Oswald's role as detailed bY James Douglass -
"JFK - UNSPEAKABLE: Why He died and why it matters"? Does anyone really still give any credence to the lone nut explanation??

2:52 PM  
Anonymous Kevin Dann said...

I just listened to Leonard Lopate interview Weiner about his new history of the FBI, and despite being critical of Hoover, and recognizing the tension between "liberty & security" that is engendered by any espionage activity, Weiner came across more as apologist than critic of the FBI.

I tried hunting on the Web to see if anyone saw through Weiner's glib manner, and came upon your critique of Weiner's CIA book. Thanks! Hope you will also write about this in a future post. Best wishes, Kevin Dann

10:30 AM  
Blogger Himself said...

I'm visiting, for much the same reason as yer man above, Kevin Dann.

I have just listened, here in the UK, to a BBC History Extra podcast

The FBI
29th March 2012

Tim Weiner explores the murky history of the FBI (Enemies: A History of the FBI)


I don't want to go into the thing chapter and verse, suffice to say, if Weiner won a Pulitzer, it must have been in the fiction category.

I don't know whether you can download it in the US? Possibly if you can switch to a British proxy?

http://www.historyextra.com/podcasts?page=9

Regards

7:15 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home